Apple's hardware engineering head Bob Mansfield made the mysterious decision to return from retirement only two months after announcing it earlier this year. His choice was at least partially influenced by the exit of iOS software head Scott Forstall. That's according to multiple sources speaking to AllThingsD, who claim Mansfield had clashes with Forstall over his "confrontational management style." Mansfield's return wasn't entirely influenced by Forstall's ousting according to the report, but it was apparently a major factor in his decision to stay on board at Apple.

"It wasn’t a him-or-me situation," one source told AllThingsD. "But, put it this way, I think Bob was much more willing to commit to two more years once he knew Scott was on his way out."

Apple announced Mansfield's retirement as senior VP of hardware engineering in June of this year, replacing him with Dan Riccio. In August, the company and Mansfield seemed to reverse course—Apple announced Mansfield would stay on board to continue to "work on future products" in the hardware engineering division. At the time, outsiders speculated that Mansfield was tempted to stay on by a hefty bonus of some sort—a theory that appears to be verified by AllThingsD's sources. Those sources said Apple CEO Tim Cook offered Mansfield a "massive cash and stock pay package."

But it turns out that was only part of the story. Now, one source claims the timing of Mansfield's reversal "is not coincidental," saying Mansfield and Forstall would not even meet without Cook's mediation. This echoes other claims made earlier this week that Apple designer Jony Ive also clashed with Forstall and that they "would not sit in the same meeting room together." Forstall was a polarizing figure both inside and outside of Apple, and it seems his presence eventually got the best of Apple's executive team.

We can only speculate about how much Forstall's exit influenced Mansfield's return, and it's important to note that Mansfield is still only playing the role of advisor with the hardware engineering team. Forstall isn't entirely out of the picture, either—he's staying on board as an advisor too.

45 Reader Comments

It really feels like all of these stories are carefully "leaked" by Apple to paint a certain kind of picture, which depicts Forestall as the difficult-to-work-with antagonist. While he may not be the nicest person (newsflash: most execs aren't), it seems a bit unfair to gang up on him like this. He had major positive contributions to iOS, and that may be an understatement.

I think people are reading too much into Apple's statement that Scott Forstall is staying on as an "advisor" to Tim Cook until next year. In many firings, people are kept on the payroll for a certain amount of time and the person is called an advisor of one sort or another, but he's really completely out of the company. I would be willing to bet that's the case here. It's probably part of the severance package that he remain on the payroll for X number of additional months. "Advisor" is a euphemism for "he has no duties during that time."

I don't particularly care if people like one another or get along, but to think that multiple upper-tier executives of one of the most profitable corporations in the world would be petulant enough to refuse to work together unless their boss forced them to irritates me.

Yes, maybe it was Forstall's "fault" for being confrontational, but seriously -- can we all grow the hell up please? These are some of the highest-paid executives in the world. They need to do their jobs regardless of whether or not they like the person sitting across the table from them.

I seem to remember another Apple executive who, once upon a time, was removed from the company for being difficult to work with. He started his own company where he hired a young go-getter named Scott Forstall and thus created... oh god, an infinite loop. I bet Forstall has already started work on the triumphal comeback speech he'll make ten years from now.

I seem to remember another Apple executive who, once upon a time, was removed from the company for being difficult to work with. He started his own company where he hired a young go-getter named Scott Forstall and thus created... oh god, an infinite loop. I bet Forstall has already started work on the triumphal comeback speech he'll make ten years from now.

I think Jobs became significantly less of a prick over the 10 years out.

If I were to guess, it sounds like there was a serious power vacuum left by the promotion of the Cook to CEO and this is the aftermath. The biggest assholes are getting booted, and the lesser assholes are staying put as long as they adequately toe Cook's line.

This is what Apple is without Jobs. One can only imagine the level of assholiness that Jobs had to maintain on a daily basis to keep this crew in line (and simultaneously design great products).

Prediction: Within five years, Apple will have collapsed under its own weight/corruption/decay. You can already find areas where it's beginning to unravel.

I seem to remember another Apple executive who, once upon a time, was removed from the company for being difficult to work with. He started his own company where he hired a young go-getter named Scott Forstall and thus created... oh god, an infinite loop. I bet Forstall has already started work on the triumphal comeback speech he'll make ten years from now.

I think Jobs became significantly less of a prick over the 10 years out.

That and he over indulged on some of his dumber obsessions, learning some important business lessons and some humility.

Honestly... now that I read this, it seems Forstall thought being an asshole, would make him as great as Steve Jobs, ("since Steve Jobs was (reportedly) an asshole, being an asshole would make me as great as Steve Jobs, right?"), and so ran with it and took it a little too far. Little did he realize, that being an asshole and being competent are two unrelated things. It's absolutely possible, that you can be an asshole, and dumb as shit at the same time.

Not saying that Forstall was dumb as shit. In fact, I bet he was a pretty smart guy. But, if someone's dicketry and dysfunction disrupts productivity in the work place, then... the person's assets do nothing for the company. Since his antics, overall, cause more problems. And that's probably what happened here. When it gets so bad that other board members don't want to speak to you, then it's a problem... Because problems with communication will hinder productivity.

The whole, "Oh, since Steve Jobs was an asshole, and since Forstall was an asshole, he'll be the next Steve Jobs" meme is old. And quite frankly, illogical.

You guys are really breaking protocol by down voting a post that says Apple is bad and Samsung is good, just look at all the other comments that are Apple/Android related. It is a simple pattern to discern. That's why this comments system is broken, comments are not voted on their merit (not that I am remotely implying that mine has any) but on the fanboy leanings of the Ars user base.

I agree. It's interesting to see what (otherwise reasonable and logical) posts are downvoted into oblivion in the Apple/Samsung 'breach of order' story.

The comment voting system, in my eyes, is just a means of the Ars administration of avoiding addressing its resident troll problem. *cough*

You guys are really breaking protocol by down voting a post that says Apple is bad and Samsung is good, just look at all the other comments that are Apple/Android related. It is a simple pattern to discern. That's why this comments system is broken, comments are not voted on their merit (not that I am remotely implying that mine has any) but on the fanboy leanings of the Ars user base.

I agree. It's interesting to see what (otherwise reasonable and logical) posts are downvoted into oblivion in the Apple/Samsung 'breach of order' story.

My down vote is because your comment was both off-topic (comment about Samsung vs Apple) and inappropriate (comment about creepy eyes).

You guys are really breaking protocol by down voting a post that says Apple is bad and Samsung is good, just look at all the other comments that are Apple/Android related. It is a simple pattern to discern. That's why this comments system is broken, comments are not voted on their merit (not that I am remotely implying that mine has any) but on the fanboy leanings of the Ars user base.

I agree. It's interesting to see what (otherwise reasonable and logical) posts are downvoted into oblivion in the Apple/Samsung 'breach of order' story.

Never mind that the post was irrelevant, totally devoid of content and added nothing to the conversation. It must be because he said he doesn't like Apple!

I agree. It's interesting to see what (otherwise reasonable and logical) posts are downvoted into oblivion in the Apple/Samsung 'breach of order' story.

Yes, there are some posts that are unfortunately treated that way, but my opinion is that many of the posts that are "downvoted into oblivion" are irrelevant, pointless, needlessly caustic, etc.

Without arguing your point, let me ALSO observe that I see posts that make a cogent argument and have been downvoted close to the oblivion threshold; I feel obliged to upvote posts to save them from oblivion even when I disagree with it — say, when I think a post misses some larger truth — as long as it's not obviously disingenuous or worse.

Still, if even “unfair” voting reminds us to not get too bombastic in our arguments, maybe it's not all bad.

You guys are really breaking protocol by down voting a post that says Apple is bad and Samsung is good, just look at all the other comments that are Apple/Android related. It is a simple pattern to discern. That's why this comments system is broken, comments are not voted on their merit (not that I am remotely implying that mine has any) but on the fanboy leanings of the Ars user base.

I agree. It's interesting to see what (otherwise reasonable and logical) posts are downvoted into oblivion in the Apple/Samsung 'breach of order' story.

My down vote is because your comment was both off-topic (comment about Samsung vs Apple) and inappropriate (comment about creepy eyes).

My downvote was because his post was a blatant troll. Which seems to be the case with a lot of posts downvoted all the way to collapse; some people seem to be unable to differentiate when they're posting legitimate, topical commentary from when they're trolling. That's unfortunate, but the system does seem to be working as desired in that department.

saying Mansfield and Forstall would not even meet without Cook's mediation.

... what? What are they, six years old? Do these people really need to have an adult present in order to have a civil conversation?

There really seem to be some unusual things that went on in Apple before. Some things were allowed to slide that are now being clamped down on. And that's a good thing. You don't want to have unprofessionalism like that run rampant.

I agree. It's interesting to see what (otherwise reasonable and logical) posts are downvoted into oblivion in the Apple/Samsung 'breach of order' story.

Yes, there are some posts that are unfortunately treated that way, but my opinion is that many of the posts that are "downvoted into oblivion" are irrelevant, pointless, needlessly caustic, etc.

Oh I agree that many blatantly idiotic posts or stuff that adds nothing to the conversation is being downvoted, and quite right too, but it's clear that the system is also being used (or abused) to suit ones prejudices. I'm not sure that's the intention.

Every corp hits bumps, and it's arguable that the problems with IOS6 qualify as bumps.

You could argue that. You could also argue that Jobs would've never let the Maps fiasco occur in the first place. Is it a big disaster? No, but it does show weaknesses in the armor that weren't there before. My argument is that those weaknesses will only grow larger.

I never asked you to agree with me, but my prediction is not hyperbole. That's the direction I think Apple is going -- the same direction MS has gone under Ballmer. They both grew exponentially under the leadership of cult-of-personality CEOs that are no longer with the company. MS is now only buoyed by their considerable corporate presence, not their phenomenal leadership in the industry.

For what it's worth, I now look at ALL downvoted comments as I discovered that many are cogent, relevant and definitely not trollish. There are many downvoted simply due to a difference of opinion. A sort of "tyranny of the majority". It's too bad really.I vote for the old system where I get to see all the comments.

For what it's worth, I now look at ALL downvoted comments as I discovered that many are cogent, relevant and definitely not trollish. There are many downvoted simply due to a difference of opinion. A sort of "tyranny of the majority". It's too bad really.I vote for the old system where I get to see all the comments.

The real point of my post at all was just to get someone to notice and start a conversation. I did post with a trolling attitude but I feel we don't have a legitimate place to talk these things out without having to succumb to the troll friendly system itself. I recognize that this post will almost certainly be trolled out of existence, but I think this comment system IS a real problem.

I love Ars Technica, and I love reading the comments and hearing what other people think, but this system gives strength to people who have no interest in hearing the other side. This is especially acute as an Apple user since I am strongly in the minority, and sit and watch as good points disappear under the weight of a large number of people who just hate. I don't want to see these comments turn into a place I don't want to visit. ie. Xbox Live.

To that end, it seems sad that others want so desperately to close the mouths of people who don't even have much voice in the first place.

Every corp hits bumps, and it's arguable that the problems with IOS6 qualify as bumps.

You could argue that. You could also argue that Jobs would've never let the Maps fiasco occur in the first place. Is it a big disaster? No, but it does show weaknesses in the armor that weren't there before. My argument is that those weaknesses will only grow larger.

I never asked you to agree with me, but my prediction is not hyperbole. That's the direction I think Apple is going -- the same direction MS has gone under Ballmer. They both grew exponentially under the leadership of cult-of-personality CEOs that are no longer with the company. MS is now only buoyed by their considerable corporate presence, not their phenomenal leadership in the industry.

Jobs let the first MobileMe happen, and then he made a point to address it. These changes seem like Tim Cook is doing his own work to "address" problems, and overall I feel like this will pan out as a good turn.

There's an old joke about an exec who receives three envelopes from his predecessor... Clearly, Cook made the (prudent) choice to skip that first envelope, and jump straight to the second one.

But seriously... the nature of all the leaks does lead one to the obvious conclusion that Forstall seems to think that he was cut from the same rough cloth as Jobs -- but the problem with such a comparison is that, if Forstall really was as great as Jobs -- and if Steve actually "liked" him for their shared rough mannerisms -- then Forstall would almost certainly have stepped directly into the role of CEO with the full backing of Jobs, prior to Steve's own retirement from the company.

But that's not what happened: Jobs picked Cook for the role. That alone speaks volumes.

Real relationships are always complicated. Speculation about Apple products is fun, but talking out of your ass about people's relationships usually reveals more about you than about the subject.

Gotta agree with zer02 here. Saying that everyone should get along with everybody implicates that nobody is ever at fault for anything, and that everybody is fine and ok. That's wrong. And it's disrespectful of the people involved.

To give an example with an extreme, if Scott Forstall threatened Bob Mansfield with physical harm, you pull Scott Forstall away from him and fire him. You don't force Bob Mansfield to continue talks with Scott Forstall, citing Bob Mansfield being a "baby" as a reason.

I don't care what anybody says. Words, respect, and dignity matter. This isn't about being "pretty little snowflakes." People who perpetuate the "pretty little snowflake" meme use it as a means of continuing their dysfunctional behavior... which means, ironically, they are being "pretty little snowflakes" themselves (... about continuing their dysfunctional behavior). These are the same folks who can't handle buckling down, taking care of their own business, and having the balls and courage to be respect to one another.

In fact, what I'm saying is completely the opposite of being "pretty little snowflakes." I'm saying, it's alright if people are at odds with one another. Nobody has to be everybody's friend. Having an expectation that everyone should be all happy and dandy and getting along with one another? -That's- being a "pretty little snowflake."

But, on the flip side, I'll agree... if someone needs mediation with everybody, then most likely the problem lies with that person requesting mediation with everybody. As zer02 pointed out, you never know the details of interpersonal relationships. It all depends on the people involved, and the situation.

In this case, though... if everyone's saying Forstall is an asshole (there are indeed two board members who requested mediation, and, maybe more)... I'm willing to bet the problem is with Forstall.

Some people are just not worth working with. Some people are just toxic and I think it takes strength to say "I'm not putting up with that guy and his crap." if you have tried being reasonable.

To give a different situation, my first marriage ended when one night while arguing I realized that if we stayed together, we would end up hating each other and that wasn't what I wanted. We broke things off and within a week of that decision there was so much weight removed from between us. That was 8 years ago. We're both remarried, I have 2 kids, and she and I still talk. My current wife was friends w/her too and we all still talk.

Yes I'm one of those weirdos who gets along w/almost all of his exes heh. The situation was toxic, we removed what made it bad.

I've also worked with people that no one liked. Everyone agreed they knew their shit, but no one had any fun when they were around and the boss eventually let them go b/c it was less stress to train someone new than deal w/them after losing a couple of good people

I've also worked with people that no one liked. Everyone agreed they knew their shit, but no one had any fun when they were around and the boss eventually let them go b/c it was less stress to train someone new than deal w/them after losing a couple of good people

Exactly, yes fully agree. Some people don't have the balls to make that decision but hopefully they come to realise the big picture.

I really dislike second-rate assholes. Kinda like all those Californians and New Yorkers that moved to Seattle in the late '70s and '80s because they didn't have the chops to be first-rate assholes where they came from.